[dns-operations] keeping ICANN busy

[ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net]

Looking at some comments in this thread ...

On 21 Sep 2012, at 09:40, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

> For the consultation mentioned in Paul Vixie's original message, the
> issue is not whether one-label domains are a good idea or not but
> whether ICANN has really nothing better to do than to add yet another
> stupid regulation in an already very thick book.

Before surrendering the issue of whether the process which resulted in the
proposed rule was consistent with the statement(s) of process and moving on
to the specifics of the proposed rule it is worth asking when and how the
government contractor reached the point of rule making for delegations from
the public root to private persons for the exclusive use of private person.

On 9/21/12 5:23 PM, Randy Bush wrote:

> is outside the root zone and none of their damned business

There are contracts. One is the contract written by the Unitd States Government
which requires a contractor to fulfill some government interest. In my own
experience running SRI's largest shop (the floor above Jake's shop) funded by
a variety of government contracts, the narrowest interest of the United States
may reach to namespaces other than .arpa, .mil, .gov, .us, .pr, .um, .vi, etc,
and reasonably include .net and others.

Restated, the United States has an interest in the existence, and function,
and correctness of function, of both .bogus, and .bogus.safe-and-sane. IANAL,
but there's no shortage of lawyers working for the current administration or
prior administrations who've written briefs supporting rather pervasive views
of "government interest" in packet networks, of which the errors and omissions
of its contractors appear included.

Eric